Coastal Engineering 1996 1997
DOI: 10.1061/9780784402429.361
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nearshore Berm Performance at Newport Beach, California, USA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The berm was considered moderately active, because the berm crest eroded, and the material was transported shoreward. However, the berm's centroid remained fairly stable (Mesa 1996).…”
Section: Sand Island Alabama (1987)mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The berm was considered moderately active, because the berm crest eroded, and the material was transported shoreward. However, the berm's centroid remained fairly stable (Mesa 1996).…”
Section: Sand Island Alabama (1987)mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Newport Beach, California: The nearshore berm at Newport Beach was constructed in October 1992 as a series of irregular mounds spanning a 900-m length of beach. The sediment was placed between the 4 and 9 m depth contours (relative to MSL), with its crest approximately 400 m offshore and h crest = 4.5 m at placement (Mesa 1996). Because the survey area from the original site report extends outside the initial berm footprint, the deflation rate for Newport Beach was recalculated for this study to ensure that the value was specific to the control volume of interest.…”
Section: Cross-shore Transport Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the survey area from the original site report extends outside the initial berm footprint, the deflation rate for Newport Beach was recalculated for this study to ensure that the value was specific to the control volume of interest. Using the time series of bathymetric profiles in Mesa's (1996) Newport Beach report, the deflation rate was calculated from the initial placement volume of 9.8 × 10 5 m 3 and an apparent 28% reduction in the berm's vertical cross-sectional area over the 2.5-year monitoring duration. The local WIS hindcast records a bimodal distribution of T p with peaks at 7 and 15 s and a maximum period of 24 s. The average of H 0 was 0.8 m with a maximum of 3.9 m. Few waves are predicted to break within the placement boundaries.…”
Section: Cross-shore Transport Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%